Media Curmudgeon

« July 2007 | Main | September 2007 »

August 30, 2007

More on Editorializing and Opinion in the News

Neil Derrough’s thoughtful response to my post on editorials and commentaries made some excellent points that impel me to expand and continue the discussion—and to continue it in a less judgmental tone.

Neil did ring a bell when he wrote, “It’s hard to interpret words like simplistic, doctrinaire, rigid, uncomplicated and less educated as an inducement to have a reasoned discussion. Trying to discredit the opposing viewpoint in this manner does not work today. Does the term elitist ring a bell?” He goes on to claim, “There are a lot of reasons that so many liberal broadcast efforts have failed. This attitude is a major contributing factor. To hope for any good to come from these heated discussions you refer to, there should at least be respect for allowing differing points of view and for those expressing it.”

I plead guilty to being somewhat of an elitist (Definition: “One who despises people or things regarded as inferior, especially because of social or intellectual pretension: snob.”) Or at least writing like one. I probably fit a standard conservative stereotype of an Eastern establishment, bleeding heart liberal, even a limousine liberal. Nevertheless, I do respect Neil and other conservatives’ points of view, even though I have a bad habit of taunting them.

Neil made the point that when he was general manager of CBS radio and television stations in the late 1960s and 70s, he editorialized and endorsed candidates. That was a golden age of broadcasting, when CBS had a conscience (ABC and NBC, too) and viewed broadcasting as first a public trust and second as a money tree. The first responsibility of a station general manager was to keep the valuable FCC license, and the way you did that was by serving the public good, convenience, and necessity and by formally ascertaining what issues local citizens, government officials, and community leaders felt were most important. General managers were not only required to editorialize, they were given the resources to do so. CBS stations were required to have both an editorial director who researched and wrote editorials and a community affairs director who assessed the needs of the community and was in charge of the license renewal process. CBS allowed general managers to endorse political candidates, a very gutsy decision, whereas NBC, being more timid, did not allow it—at least in the mid-1970s.

Imagine, television and radio stations (terrestrial radio had much more impact then than now) that were licensed by the government—a politically appointed FCC—endorsing political candidates. The policy then was to endorse local and state candidates, not presidential candidates, which I think was the correct way to do it.

Neil also pointed out that it was not the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, but that “expense considerations” were are the heart of most decisions by radio and television station group owners to stop editorializing. I agree with that point, but I also think that many group owners were influenced by programmers who didn’t want any boring interruptions, by lawyers who didn’t want to piss off any politicians, and by salespeople who didn’t want to offend any advertisers. Therefore, well-researched, thoughtful editorial opinion was dumped and replaced by unlabeled opinion that was not well researched and meant to incite controversy (“let’s you and him fight”) rather than elicit discussion. Controversial talk programming with a single bloviator (conservative or liberal) is a lot less expensive than investigative journalism that requires digging and fact-checking.

Neil also correctly pointed out that commentary creeping into news content is not new, that Walter Cronkite did it in the 1970s when he made it clear he opposed the war in Vietnam. I think that was the “green light for media organizations to let opinion slip in to their news coverage,” as Neil points out. Of course, I don’t agree with him that “The New York Times is one of the worst offenders,” but that is another discussion and another blog. The larger question, is, I think, has commentary creep been embraced by the American news-and-information-consuming public? And if so, has the definition of news and, thus, journalism been altered?

I believe the answer is “yes.” I don’t think it matters much when or how the definition changed (although it is interesting, at least to me), but what is important is to recognize that news and journalism has changed permanently and how we, as consumers of information, can adjust and adapt our consumption tastes and habits.

Opinion, bias, and subjectivity are now embedded in most of our sources of information. I think all of us will continue to do what humans have always done and select those sources of information, gossip, or rumors that reinforce and are consistent with our own opinions, biases, and subjective, often narrow, views. But I hope that most news consumers will do what Neil Derrough does and expose themselves to opposing views and express their disagreement so that subjectivity and bias don’t get too far out of hand—become their own watchdogs, in a sense.

One organization that performs the media watchdog function well—both for conservatives and liberals—is Media Matters for America, although conservatives think it tilts left. I urge you to subscribe to its RSS feeds or regularly go to its website.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:34 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

August 28, 2007

Neil Derrough Responds

Your most recent entry hits close to the nerve. As one that editorialized representing management's view for radio or television stations in San Francisco, New York, Chicago and San Diego it’s a subject I care a lot about. I take delight in describing our editorial point of view at KCBS News Radio in the latter sixties by the fact that we endorsed Ronald Reagan for Governor of California and the current mayor of Oakland Ron Dellums in his first race to be an Oakland Congressman. How far apart were they? I like to think I that I remain as opened minded.

By the way, it wasn’t dropping the Fairness Doctrine that lead to most stations not doing management editorials. I did them in San Diego until I left KNSD in 2000. Apathetic management and expense considerations are at the heart most it. I’m sure there are still some stations fighting the odds and continuing.

I have observed with great interest this labeling transition you refer to. A case can be made that it has been going on a lot longer that you think. I submit that during the glory days of CBS News that Walter Cronkite was right in the middle of unlabeled opinion during his nightly broadcasts. Many credit his coverage of the Viet Nam war as a major reason the public lost confidence in that conflict. Most would agree that it was all for the right reason but, still unlabeled commentary. That was a green light for media organizations to let opinion slip into their news coverage. After all, when the most trusted man in America could do it with such a significant impact, why not? Is it any wonder that with this backdrop that CBS News felt at ease letting personal opinion drift into their coverage?

The New York Times is one of the worst offenders. Their editorial opinion appears in their news coverage daily. I won’t bother and list the other publications that follow that same practice. I continue to be astounded about the outcry about Fox and talk radio. It seems that allowing other viewpoints to get into the discussion is hard to accept by those leading this assault. I was pleased to see that you made reference to the practice of both the right and the left. It’s so often ignored

You however, follow the same path that so many liberal/progressives do. You use words that must be aimed to be “demeaning and humiliate” to describe conservatives that you claim you want to have a “discussion.” It’s hard to interpret words like simplistic, doctrinaire, rigid, uncomplicated and less educated as an inducement to have a reasoned discussion. Trying to discredit the opposing viewpoint in this manner does not work today. Does the term elitist ring a bell? There are a lot of reasons that so many liberal broadcast efforts have failed. This attitude is a major contributing factor. To hope for any good to come from these heated discussions you refer to, there should at least be respect for allowing differing points of view and for those expressing it.

Our current Congress is locked into this same counter-productive position. There is little respect or interest in really dealing with the complex and difficult issues that face us today. For the biggest part, the driving force is political advantage. Gaining power or keeping it is primarily ruling us at this point.

The many differing voices will be noisy and somewhat unruly during this time of transition. It’s a part of our system of governing. I have confidence that while it won’t be easy, quick or always comfortable, we will be able to sort all this out and continue with our ongoing transition.

Posted by Charles Warner at 06:55 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

August 27, 2007

Editorials and Commentaries

The title of Bill Moyers' speech to the AEJMC was titled "What Adam Said to Eve," referring to a line he had in the speech: As Adam and Eve were on their way out of the Garden of Eden, he reportedly said to her: “My Dear, we live in a time of transition.” Moyers was talking about journalism, but he could just as well have been talking about a sub-category of journalism--editorials.

Before I opine about editorials and commentaries, I think we need to define the terms, because the current use of the term "editorial" is loose. An editorial is an opinion piece that reflects the official position of the owners of a newspaper, magazine, television or radio station, cable system, or website. Editorials are traditionally labeled as such and clearly separated from other content, and should be, I believe.

Commentaries are the opinions of individual contributors and reflect their own views and not that of ownership or management, and, like editorials, should be labeled or, at the very least, separated from news and information content, as in the “Opinion” section of the New York Times website.

What has happened in this age of transition to the labeling of editorials and commentaries/opinions? What has happened to fair and balanced news reporting other than having the concept hijacked for a cynical and false marketing claim?

Because Media Curmudgeon is an opinion blog--not news or information--what follows is my opinion: I believe that opinion (editorial and commentary) has crept into news and information content because of greed--the lust for power, money, and sex. Greed and lust are certainly nothing new. The lust for power, the ability to control others, has existed since humans have existed, even before the Garden of Eden, a sweet myth invented by church elders who wanted to control men and, especially, women for monetary gain and sex. Christopher Hitchens supports this position in his dazzlingly brilliant book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

There are many reasons people are greedy for power, money, and sex (PMS). One of the most common is personality type. I believe many of those who lust for PMS have a rigid, authoritarian personality, as described by Adorno, Frenkl-Brusnwick, Levinson, and Sanford in The Authoritarian Personality and more recently popularized by George Lakoff as the strict father personality in Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate--The Essential Guide for Progressives. Lakoff, a linguist, details how right-wing conservatives systematically framed political issues over 20 years to gain power and, eventually, the White House.

I believe the majority of the right-wing conservatives have rigid, authoritative personalities and that they want to impose their values and beliefs on others. In their ingrained self-righteousness they are convinced they are right on all things and that the end justifies the means; they are unwilling to listen or debate the issues. It's "my way or I'll kill you and your children"--either kill you with guns or with words that demean and humiliate. There are no laws or federal regulations that make it illegal to assassinate a group of people or public figures with words and lies. So liberals, gays, atheists, and reasonable people are fair game.

Therefore, I believe the motivation for the strict father personality type to editorialize is to proselytize—any means justifies the end; the end being conversion to their views and, thus, power. They want you to convert and then do what they tell you to do without questioning or else there will be strict punishment.

The old-fashioned concept of editorial fair play that was traditional in the broadcast media before 1987 (click for a history of the Fairness Doctrine) has been abandoned by many rigid, authoritarian owners, especially corporate broadcast ownership. When the Fairness Doctrine required it, broadcasters would air rebuttals to their editorials. Opposing points of view were encouraged and broadcast. But rarely do you see editorializing or rebuttals today in broadcast and cable, even though editorials in newspapers and most magazines still print Letter to the Editors that expound opposite points of view.

Once fairness was deregulated, for many reasons, some of them reasonable at the time, broadcasters stopped editorializing and opinion began creeping into content until it became content. Broadcast and cable programmers found that opinions stirred the water, were exciting, and engaged emotions more than engaging the mind—in other words got ratings. This trend was accelerated by on-air talent who craved to be celebrities and have their opinions heard, regardless of the intellectual value of their opinions—they’d rather be famous, and, thus, high paid, than be right. Excuse me, I mean “than be correct.”

Right-wing, conservative positions tend to be simplistic, often fundamentalist, and, thus, not complicated. Therefore, they are easier to articulate, especially for and to less educated people. Liberal, progressive positions tend to be more complicated and nuanced, thus more difficult to articulate in sound bites. Bingo: Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

The liberal, progressive response to the simplistic conservative programming and opinion-infected news and information programming has, unfortunately been petulant and copy-cat. Frustrated, the liberals and progressives have allowed their opinions to infect their programming and have not labeled their opinions as such. They have abandoned their marketplace-of-ideas approach, the theory of which was to editorialize not to proselytize but to create a public dialogue on important issues and let those ideas compete for acceptance in an open marketplace of ideas. This the approach I take on Media Curmudgeon—here is my opinion, please disagree and I’ll post your ideas so we can have an open and, hopefully, heated discussion; because I believe light comes from heat and that you come closer to the truth by exploring ideas than by keeping opinions one-sided.

Liberals and progressives are now proselytizing, going for conversions, and getting down in the imbedded opinion gutter with conservatives. Even my favorite liberal, Bill Moyers, can’t resist. Michael Getler, PBS’s ombudsman, wrote a critique of an August 17, “Bill Moyers Journal” program in which Moyers ended with a blistering editorial that raked Karl Rove over the coals. But his comments were not labeled as commentary or an editorial, and should have been, as Getler properly pointed out. In my view Rove deserved being criticized, but Moyers should have labeled it as an opinion and, probably, left it out of the program. His program has consistently delivered solid, fact-based investigative journalism, critical of the war in Iraq and big drug companies--liberal causes to be sure--but fact-based. Let the facts speak for themselves and gain traction in the marketplace for ideas without a push, no matter how tempting it is to push.

Alberto Gonzales resigned today after a long, bitter investigation by Congress that was kick-started by facts first uncovered in a blog—Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo. Marshall didn’t editorialize, his staff presented facts. The best way to counter the simplistic, doctrinaire conservative propaganda and ranting is to present facts based on solid, thorough, accurate reporting (good journalism) or by ridicule, as brilliantly and popularly done by Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.

Many thoughtful observers of the political scene thought that it was Herblock’s cartoons in the Washington Post that were the biggest nail in Nixon’s coffin when he resigned. Biting humor and pointed ridicule are often the most effective weapons in exposing mendacity, greed for PMS, and corruption. So in the new media world, television comedians have taken over the role once filled by Honoré Daumier, Harpers Weekly’s Thomas Nast, and Herblock. Who needs editorials when it’s so easy to make fun of the greedy, the liars, and the poseurs?

Posted by Charles Warner at 01:30 PM | Comments (4) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at August 30, 2007 01:15 PM writes:

---

Bruce Braun at August 30, 2007 01:03 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at August 27, 2007 07:06 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at August 27, 2007 06:30 PM writes:

---

August 26, 2007

NBC’s NFL Half-Time Program

On Sunday, August 26, NBC debuted its new Sunday Night Football half-time program with Bob Costas, Chris Collingsworth, The Bus ( Jerome Bettis), and new addition Keith Olbermann. Refreshing, excellent. No glitzy, overdone graphics, no silly laughing, no macho kidding, no street-fashion suits, and no worn clichés about establishing the run, just intelligent, straightforward discussion.

The addition of Olbermann was an inspired choice; it raised the IQ level of the program by 20 points, and a rising tide lifts all boats. I have always felt that Bob Costas is the brightest, most articulate TV sports commentator, studio host, and play-by-play person, and this opinion was reinforced by the half-time program. It was good to see Costas complemented by someone equally bight and articulate in Olberman, and it seemed as though Costas was delighted to have someone else really smart to talk to.

The show began with a commentary by Olbermann on Michael Vick—it was articulately communicated, jargon-free, thoughtful, and thought-provoking—on a sports program no less. Chris Collingsworth was out of his depth trying to discuss the Vick situation. Chris should have stayed with football and left the intelligent discussion to Costas and Olbermann.

Jerome Bettis was refreshingly honest and unpretentious talking about is new book and some of revelations in it. What’s not to like about The Bus? Keep him and dump Collingsworth in order to give Costas and Olbermann more time to appeal to an intelligent, upscale audience.

Congratulations and thanks, NBC.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:21 PM | Comments (2) | Print |

frankf at October 15, 2007 11:41 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at August 27, 2007 10:49 AM writes:

---

Bill Moyers AEJMC Speech

In my August 17 blog titled "Journalism Educators Behind the Curtain," I referred to Bill Moyers' brilliant speech to the AEJMC, which was, unfortunately, not available on the AEJMC website or anywhere else I could find on the Internet.

I subscribe to Bill Moyers Journal blog and the full text of the speech was sent to me--so here it is: Moyers AEJMC Speech.

Posted by Charles Warner at 01:16 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

August 21, 2007

A History of WCBS-FM

John Catlett, a highly respected international radio consultant and who, as general manager, originated the oldies format at WCBS-FM, remembers:

"I enjoyed your thread on radio and on WCBS-FM in particular. It reminded me of how the oldies station got its start.

When Herb McCord was allowed to abandon the automated Young Sound in New York, he created what became my personal favorite New York radio station. Long Hugh Heller jingles and Bobby "Wizard" Wayne, the Magic Christian--I can't remember the names of all jocks. And there were great posters designed by Dale Pon promoting the station in the subways.

I was at Time-Life Broadcast, where I was one of the first New York staff members to get canned when they announced the sale of all their stations to McGraw-Hill. One of the kinder old-timers at Time-Life introduced me to Bob Cole, head of the CBS FM stations, and soon I found myself in Chicago building CBS-FM Sales for Bob and for the head of sales, Jack Baker. Then, in about six months, the manager of WBBM-FM, Tom Cosgrove, took an offer from Viacom (just spun off from CBS) that would allow him to return to California, and I found myself managing WBBM-FM. Even though the company had relocated the creators of The Young Sound to Chicago, I argued for trying a mass-appeal rock format with live jocks, and Bob Cole allowed it. We hit big in our first book.

Then, Bob Cole called to tell me that Herb McCord was moving over to TV sales and he wanted me to come to New York. Having only enjoyed a couple of weeks basking in promising ratings in Chicago, I asked to think it over...and Cole gave me 24 hours to decide.

Herb went to the CBS Television network as a salesman to make a lot more money, so I went to NY and WCBS-FM.

Doing oldies as a full-time format was under consideration--WOR-FM was doing it a couple of hours a day, as I recall, and WCAU-FM was trying it and gradually expanding oldies to cover more and more of their day--but nobody on our staff at WCBS-FM was really very enthusiastic. Not even the sales staff was interested in going after this untried niche, and all the radio futurists were saying that it would be suicide to give up on FM's only advantage in its war against AM--its ability to broadcast in stereo--to play those old mono records. Yet I had the assignment of making changes that would reposition the station, set it apart from eight other rock stations, and set fire to the sales. We had little to lose except the enthusiasm of the programming staff, and they were already disheartened by Herb's departure, whom they loved. I decided to go ahead on Friday, June 30, and we had a meeting with all the announcers that afternoon. The following Wednesday I was in Dallas "helping" PAMS produce our jingle package, and Thursday morning I had the final mixes with me when I flew back to New York. On Friday at 6:00 a.m. we introduced the oldies format. The Program Director was even less enthusiastic than the air staff, so I took a chance and replaced him with a kid just out of college who was enjoying helping WCAU-FM do oldies in Philly--John Gehron. We didn't have any budget for advertising or promotion. I think the only paid advertising we did was run the call letters and frequency behind a plane flying along the Jersey beaches one or two weekends.

Six months later we had ratings proof that the move had been a good one. Sam Digges, president of the CBS Radio Division, approved money from his own budget to run full page ads for us in The New York Times and Billboard Magazine with this headline:

'WCBS/FM has the largest audience of any FM station in America. In fact, only six AM stations in the country have larger average audiences.'

Those were fun times!"

Posted by Charles Warner at 09:08 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

August 20, 2007

Skube Doobie Doo

On Sunday, August 19, Elon University Assistant Professor Michael Skube wrote an Op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times titled “Blogs: All the noise that fits” and sub-titled “The hard-line opinions on weblogs are no substitute for the patient fact-finding of reporters.” Skube made the mistake of citing Josh Marshall’s TalkingPointsMemo, one of the Media Curmudgeon’s favorite blogs, as an example of a blog that doesn’t do original reporting. Here is Marshall’s response:

Annals of Reporting
08.19.07 -- 8:16PM
By Josh Marshall

"For a variety of reasons I try to stay out of the debates over blogs as such, what they're good or bad at and the rest. But this morning I was alerted to an opinion column in the Los Angeles Times by Michael Skube… The sum of the piece is that the blogosphere is as rife with disputation as it is thin on information, or more specifically, reporting, writing that demands 'time, thorough fact-checking and verification and, most of all, perseverance.'

Now, fair enough. There's certainly no end of blog pontificating fueled by puffed-up self-assertion rather than facts. But Skube's piece reads with a vagueness that suggests he has less than a passing familiarity with the topic at issue. And I will confess to you that what really caught my attention was that in a column bewailing how blogs don't do any real reporting one of the four bloggers he mentioned was me.

Now, whether we do any quality reporting at TPM is a matter of opinion. And everyone is entitled to theirs. So against my better judgment, I sent Skube an email telling him that I found it hard to believe he was very familiar with TPM if he was including us as examples in a column about the dearth of original reporting in the blogosphere. Now, I get criticized plenty. And that's fair since I do plenty of criticizing. And I wouldn't raise any of this here if it weren't for what came up in Skube's response.

Not long after I wrote I got a reply: ‘I didn't put your name into the piece and haven't spent any time on your site. So to that extent I'm happy to give you benefit of the doubt ...’

This seemed more than a little odd since, as I said, he certainly does use me as an example -- along with (Andrew) Sullivan, Matt Yglesias and Kos. So I followed up noting my surprise that he didn't seem to remember what he'd written in his own opinion column on the very day it appeared and that in any case it cut against his credibility somewhat that he wrote about sites he admits he'd never read.

To which I got this response: ‘I said I did not refer to you in the original. Your name was inserted late by an editor who perhaps thought I needed to cite more examples ...’

And this is from someone who teaches journalism?

Perhaps I'm naive. But it surprises me a great deal that a professor of journalism freely admits that he allows to appear under his own name claims about a publication he concedes he's never read.

Actually, if you look at what he says, it seems Skube's editor at the Times oped page didn't think he had enough specific examples in his article decrying our culture of free-wheeling assertion bereft of factual backing. Or perhaps any examples. So the editor came up with a few blogs to mention and Skube signed off. And Skube was happy to sign off on the addition even though he didn't know anything about them.

I grant you that the blogosphere needs better bloggers. But, as usual, the need for better critics seems even more acute."

Another very smart blooger, Jesse Kornbluth of Head Butler sent the following email to Skube:

“Prof. Skube -

I read your Op-ed and the Josh Marshall exchange.
May I presume that he quoted you accurately?

My question is best framed as one you might deal with in class.
Thus:

You write a piece.
Your editors insert text that draws on their "expertise."
What is your responsibility for those words?

Best,
Jesse Kornbluth
Editor, HeadButler.com”

There are other similar comments, some not as subtle but equally damming, on Skube’s piece on the LA Times website.

Why are intelligent bloggers and journalists pissed off Skube’s intellectually dishonest, muddily reasoned, big-J-snobbish screed? Because he has no clue what he’s talking about. He’s typical of journalism and communications academicians who are mired in the foggy past and still teach reporting techniques in what a favorite cartoon of mine called dinosaur blogs.

If you look at Skube’s bio on the Elon University website and look at the up-to-the-second courses he teaches, you’ll see why. He teaches CM 218. Writing and Information Gathering, JCM 225. Reporting and Newswriting, “By studying the basic types of news articles for the mass media, students learn to gather information and report it in standard journalistic style. Focus is on writing leads, interviewing techniques and editing copy. Word processing ability necessary. Prerequisite: C or better in JCM 218,” and JCM 377. Magazine Writing, “A study of the varieties of magazine writing today, with emphasis on the ways in which magazines will be considered, from those that convey useful information for daily living to those that address political and cultural issues. Because magazine writing differs from newspaper writing, particular attention will be paid to style and narrative technique. Students will write a magazine-length piece of their own. A firm command of grammar as well as an interest in writing in the ‘longer form’ is essential.”

By the way, putting quotes around “longer form” is incorrect grammar.

Above is the thoroughly modern graphic Skube uses on his Course Descriptions web page.

Assistant Professor Skube touts in his bio that he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1989—but not for reporting, for criticism. He was book editor and wrote a book review column for the Raleigh News & Observer. In other words, he won a prize for writing opinions, not for patient fact-checking. Here’s what he wrote in his pretentious LA Times Op-ed piece:

“In our time, the Washington Post's reporting, in late 2005, of the CIA's secret overseas prisons and its painstaking reports this year on problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center -- both of which won Pulitzer Prizes -- were not exercises in armchair commentary. The disgrace at Walter Reed, true enough, was first mentioned in a blog, but the full scope of that story could not have been undertaken by a blogger or, for that matter, an Op-Ed columnist, whose interest is in expressing an opinion quickly and pungently. Such a story demanded time, thorough fact-checking and verification and, most of all, perseverance. It's not something one does as a hobby.”

He won a Pulitzer for expression opinions about books, he doesn’t fact check what is published under his name, and he’s a full-time teacher who writes Op-ed opinion pieces as a hobby.

Well, Michael, your hobby, like mine, is expressing opinions, and it’s a worthy one because it creates a public dialogue. I argue online with my wonderful conservative and liberal friends and we have a stimulating time. I hope you will take time to have a meaningful dialogue with your critics instead of being petulantly defensive.

And I hope you’ll subscribe to the RSS feed of Talking Points Memo, but from what it looks like you know about the web, you might not know what an RSS feed is. But at least you should apologize for being wrong to Marshall, who does superb, fact-checking reporting.

Your Op-ed piece seems to me to be similar to someone who teaches students how to use an abacus complaining about how silly the theory of quantum mechanics is after hearing fellow teachers discussing Walter Isaacson’s biography of Einstein and not having read the book or knowing anything about physics.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:30 PM | Comments (0) | Print |

Is Radio Dead?

Media guru and blogger Shelly Palmer on his Media 3.0 website posted a blog entry titled “When Will Radio Die?” in which he elaborated on the challenges the terrestrial radio industry faces. In keeping with his advertising background, the headline was much more provocative than the body of his blog and was misleading. Palmer did not predict the demise of terrestrial radio, but merely listed its many challenges.

Palmer also listed terrestrial radio’s strengths for the near-term future: simplicity, ubiquity, and inertia. But he left out a big near-term strength, localism. Recently, Jack Myers interviewed CBS Radio’s new CEO, Dan Mason on JackMyers.com. Myers, who does some of the best interviewing in the media, talked to Mason who said, “Every radio station can become a TV station.” “Radio is the most powerful local medium there is,” Mason elaborated. “It has the ability to call people to action with a swiftness no other medium can claim. Announcers can reach out and touch people. Too often, the personality aspects of radio get lost. WCBS-FM is a station that blatantly and passionately was a part of New York City. That’s what radio needs to do in every market.”

Hooray for Mason! It’s about time a corporate radio executive got it right and reversed the all-vanilla corporate radio (all dumb, all the time) that Mason’s predecessors at CBS Radio instituted and that Clear Channel perfected. Clear Channel is selling off most of its radio stations because, as a top industry consultant told me, “Clear Channel couldn’t organize a two-car funeral procession.”

As I wrote in a blog last year, the corporate radio format, Jack FM, that failed at WCBS-FM before Mason switched it back to its oldies format, was a real turkey. Any format that wanted to appeal to adults and featured “No Underwear Tuesdays” and no announcers was doomed in New York. I’m listening to WCBS-FM’s live webcast as I’m writing this and it sounds great—like it did when Herb McCord switched it from the taped “Love Sounds” automated format in 1968 to all-hit radio and when Nancy Widman ran it as an oldies station in the late 1980s. At one time WCBS-FM was number-one In New York in the 25-54 demo.

Mason predicts that with the ability to do webcasts and webisodes, radio stations can become TV stations—at least on the Web. I think this is a stretch, but if terrestrial radio emphasizes local content and is fun to listen to, it will continue to survive and be profitable.

What about satellite radio? I don’t think the FCC will approve the merger between Sirius and XM Satellite Radio despite Mel Karmazin’s, Sirius’ CEO, attempts to placate the FCC. Too much bad blood there. The Republican-dominated FCC has been overly concerned with indecency in the past four years, so why would it enable Howard Stern and XM’s and Sirius’ X-rated comedy channels to continue, especially now that Internet radio is available on table-top receivers.

The NY Times’ David Pogue wrote a column on August 9, titled “Internet Radio Made Easier,” that gave details about Internet radio receivers that use Wi-Fi technology to make the hundred of thousands of Internet radio websites, such as Pandora.com, easier to use by not tying them down to a computer. Internet radio makes everyone a broadcaster and provides listeners with virtually an infinite variety of programming, and it’s free—no $12.95 a month subscription fees. Who needs satellite radio now?

Radio is still the Rodney Dangerfield of the media. No one coming out of college wants to work in radio. No one ever goes into Best Buy and asks to buy a radio set. No media buyer ever wants to plan or buy radio. But if you’re in your car and want to listen to the Who or the Stones or a baseball game or want the traffic and weather, you listen to terrestrial radio.

Radio isn’t dead, it’s just breathing a little heavy, like me riding my bicycle to the yacht club, and I’m not quite 100 years old like radio is. Radio will be around for awhile, getting little respect, but surviving.

Posted by Charles Warner at 06:22 AM | Comments (3) | Print |

Vince Thompson at August 20, 2007 11:50 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at August 20, 2007 02:55 PM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at August 20, 2007 02:51 PM writes:

---

August 17, 2007

Journalism Educators Behind the Curtain

Bill Moyers gave a brilliant and stirring keynote speech to the annual AEJMC convention. AEJMC stands for the Association of Education in Journalism and Mass Communication and is the primary educational association for journalism academics. Moyers quoted a blog a young journalist wrote on the Huffington Post and said he felt it was “clearly the worst of times” for journalism and asked if it could also be the best of times, referring to the advances in technology that gives everyone, not just working journalists, immediate access to a worldwide audience.

Moyers urged journalism educators to teach students that because “the market will not deliver to democracy the information we need to survive” a new generation of students must provide that information in spite of government, corporate, and right-wing media attempts to silence the truth. In response, Moyers dramatically pronounced "silence is sedition."

You’d think the AEJMC would make some effort to promote the speech and make it easily accessible, both in video and text form. It would be good journalism practice to do so. But if you Googled the speech or went to Yahoo Search to find it, what came up in the search results were several blogs entries complaining about not being able to find a text version and about having to launch RealPlayer to view it on the CSPAN website. I tried, but found it impossibly complicated, so I gave up. The only place I could find the speech was on YouTube and YouTube only had the speech in two parts, which consisted of about a third of Moyers’ remarks.

The AEJMC website didn’t feature the speech; it merely had a summary of it—no video, no text version. The AEJMC website sucks—hard to use and hard to find anything—but it was better than the incomprehensible mess on the CSPAN website. No wonder YouTube is so popular—it’s easy to use, it’s easy to find stuff on it.

What this tells me is that the AEJMC and journalism educators are, like the Wizard of Oz, hiding behind a curtain, pontificating about the magic of journalism without having any clue about the techniques and tools of today’s journalism, which are now web centric—blogs, video, citizen journalism, user-generated content, and social networking.

Moyers said in his speech that he starts his day with Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo and ends his day with Jon Stewart, about whom Moyers says, “Mark Twain is alive and well and holding the powers that be accountable” with intelligence and wit. How many journalism educators and academics read Josh Marshall’s blog or sing the praises of Jon Stewart and his “Daily Show” on Comedy Central? They are still teaching newspaper reporting and doing stand-ups for local television news programs.

Someone tell the AEJMC and journalism educators that they’re not in Kansas anymore. I give Moyers credit for trying to do so--that was really his message, I think.

Posted by Charles Warner at 12:55 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at August 18, 2007 06:35 PM writes:

---

August 09, 2007

Bonds Coverage

Even though I hate Barry Bonds, I watched ESPN Tuesday night to see if he was going to break Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record of 755. He did, and ESPN provided straightforward coverage—nothing exceptional or glitzy, just solid, objective coverage. ESPN and its second-string announcers let Bonds be the star, which wouldn’t have happened if the self-absorbed blowhard Chris Berman had been in the broadcast booth.

ESPN’s baseball play-by-play A-team of John Miller and Joe Morgan were not the announcers. Miller was calling the game for KNBR-AM, his regular gig, and I had heard that the acerbic Joe Morgan didn’t want to call the record-breaking home run. I’m with Morgan; I wouldn’t have wanted to be part of it either.

For me the star of the evening was Hank Aaron. To everyone’s surprise, Aaron gave a 51-second video-taped congratulatory tribute to Bonds. Aaron was gracious and eloquent. He said, “I would like to offer my congratulations to Barry Bonds on becoming baseball’s career home-run leader. It is a great accomplishment, which required skill, longevity and determination.” He ended by saying, “My hope today, as it was on that April evening in 1974, is that the achievement of this record will inspire others to chase their own dreams.” In other words, he hopes someone will beat Bonds fair and square.

In the sports world it was common knowledge that the beloved Aaron felt that Bonds had probably cheated and taken performance enhancing drugs and steroids to help him chase his hallowed 33-year-old record, and wanted no part in congratulating Bonds. But he relented, and his tribute to Bonds was pure class—the very opposite of Bonds.

Sports heroes are role models for young people, whether or not they believe it or like it. We would all like for our children to grow up to be polite, gracious, and dignified like Aaron, not mean, nasty, selfish cheaters like Bonds. That’s why I think Aaron stole the show—he was the star; he was the role model, not Bonds.

Wednesday morning, NPR once again demonstrated that it knows nothing whatsoever about sports. It covered the Bonds record-breaking blast, reluctantly, I’m sure (and it sounded like reluctant coverage), and interviewed John Miller. NPR wrongly identified him as “ESPN’s John Miller,” and did so twice, so it was no mistake. NPR should have identified Miller as “KNBR’s John Miller,” which ESPN radio correctly did that same morning. The NPR Miller interview was perfunctory, while ESPN’s “Mike and Mike in the Morning” program asked smart questions and got equally smart answers. ESPN Radio’s coverage was excellent—in depth, balanced, and thoughtful. It didn’t duck the steroids issue but gave Bonds the credit he deserves for an amazing accomplishment.

NPR shouldn't try to cover sports and it should get rid of of the arrogant, elitist, dull snob, Frank Deford. Let him do program on satellite radio with Bob Edwards--two boring peas in a pod.

The New York Times coverage was factual, but pontificatingly ponderous, as usual with sports. The Times’ Bonds editorial on Thursday was judgmental, boring, self-righteous, and prissy—well, the NY Times. The Times should drop its pitiful, ad-bare sports section (the fact that advertisers won’t touch it should give them a clue) and tell people if they want sports, go to ESPN.com. I mean, after all, how much political news do you get on ESPN? The only good piece I’ve read in the Times’ so-called sports section was by Selena Roberts, published April 8, and titled, “The Road to Success Is Paved by Cheating.” Let Roberts blog about sports, but drop the sports section—send traffic to ESPN.com and make a deal to share ad revenue. The Times would cut expenses and increase revenues—something Sulzberger doesn’t seem to know how to do.

Posted by Charles Warner at 11:29 PM | Comments (1) | Print |

bob hoffman at August 10, 2007 08:37 PM writes:

---

August 06, 2007

Why We Should Care About Chauncey Bailey's Murder

Guest blogger Neil Derrough, former president of the CBS Television Stations Division, writes the following. It's important, so please read it:

The murder of Chauncey Bailey, the editor of the Oakland Post, happened four days ago. It’s astounding that with the exception of the San Francisco Bay Area, scant attention has been paid to this story. This is far more than a local murder story. It’s beyond belief that the daytime execution of a journalist while pursuing a story doesn’t stir the blood of everyone, especially people within news organizations. Where’s the coverage and outrage from other reporters, editors, publishers and those working for electronic news outlets?

So far just a few days after the murder there is little national coverage or public outrage. I think that will change as the story develops. At least I hope so. It’s difficult to defend the enormous amount of attention paid to insignificant nonsense instead of issues of more substantive importance. If another celebrity DUI had happened last week the headlines, helicopters and up-dates from media camp-outs would still blanket the story.

This tragedy strikes at the heart of multiple issues that demand attention. Not the least of which is to allow journalists to practice their craft knowing that when heartbreak of this kind happens, they have the support of the journalistic profession at large. The newspapers in the San Francisco Bay Area are joining together to dig further into this story. Good for them.

It’s time for the rest of the country to join in. The immediate national attention has been tepid at best, but there’s still time devote the concentration to this story that it deserves. This outrageous attack shouldn’t succeed in chilling the effort to vigorously pursue this story and all of its implications.

Posted by Charles Warner at 06:21 PM | Comments (3) | Print |

Media Curmudgeon at August 7, 2007 02:55 PM writes:

---

Paul Talbot at August 7, 2007 08:59 AM writes:

---

Emily White at August 6, 2007 09:53 PM writes:

---

August 03, 2007

Family-Owned Media

Four family-owned media companies are in the news: The Bancrofts and the Wall Street Journal, the Murdochs and News Corp., the Redstones and Viacom and CBS, and the Steinbrenners and the New York Yankees and the YES cable network. Deals and possible deals are making headlines, the biggest of which, of course, is super media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s deal to buy Dow Jones & Co. and the Wall Street Journal.

There are two family-owned media company that are not making current headlines, but should be on the above list, the Sulzbergers and the New York Times and Dolans of Cablevision.

The Bancrofts, who agreed to sell the Wall Street Journal to Murdoch, were not involved in managing the company whose shares they controlled. They were third and fourth generation non-operating people who inherited the great newspaper and other assets but left strategy and management to others. It’s not too far fetched to suggest they didn’t earn or deserve their inherited wealth, but on the other hand, who does? Many of the family seem to have been arrogant, prideful slackers who had more money than brains, but finally realized they had better take Murdoch’s generous offer for a newspaper that during their careless absentee ownership had failed to develop a viable sustainable strategy for a new media era.

On the other hand, the Sulzberger family both controls and manages the New York Times, and its current family manager, Arthur, Jr., doesn’t seem to have the management expertise, toughness, brilliance, or strategic vision to keep America’s top newspaper brand reasonably profitable in the new media era. However, Arthur seems like a genius compared to the stupid, arrogant, awful James Dolan, Cablevision's CEO and son of founder Chuck Dolan. Like the Sulzbergers, the Dolans both control and manage their media empires, and in both cases the kids aren’t doing the family fortunes any good. There might be a lesson here, but is Rupert Murdoch, Sumner Redstone, or George Steinbrenner listening?

Murdoch is the smartest strategist of them all, which he proved with his latest coup, the Wall Street Journal, but it looks like he’s going to bring his son James along to eventually inherit and run his media empire. James might be smarter, tougher, and a better strategist than Arthur Sulzberger and is surely better in every way than the monkey, Dolan, but does he have the fierce competitive nature of his father or Sumner Redstone? I doubt it. Rupert is 76 and might be effective for another 10 years, but then what? It will be the ultimate and inevitable irony that in 20 years that the News Corp., controlled by but not managed by the Murdoch family, will do what the Bancrofts did and sell to an aggressive, competitive, media conglomerate with abundant new media savvy and assets.

Redstone, who’s 84, looks like he’s listening. He seems to have pushed out his daughter, Shari, who he previously set up to be his successor as chairman of Viacom and CBS. He seems to be maneuvering to leave her the National Theater chain and get her out of the Viacom and CBS picture. He’s intelligently setting up his legacy, which will be a great media conglomerate run by professional media executives, not family. Within 20 years, Viacom and CBS will merge and surpass Time Warner as the top media conglomerate in the world.

No one will buy Cablevision, which also owns Madison Square Garden, the Knicks, and the Rangers, as long as James Dolan comes with the deal. Cablevision will sell off its units piecemeal. The Dolans will sell the cable assets to Comcast, the Kicks and the Rangers to some greater fool (there’s always one for sports teams, which is why they will sell, probably to a hedge fund manager). James Dolan will wind up CEO of Madison Square Garden, which he will, of course, proceed to run into the ground after he tries to promote too many of his own rock concerts.

This leaves the Steinbrenners. George just turned 77 and is in poor health. There are rumors that the family might sell the YES cable network and even the Yankees. The two together are worth nearly $5 billion. If George is smart, he’ll take a page from Sumner Redstone’s playbook and not let his family run the business. He’ll sell the Yankees and the YES network and let his family blow the money instead of screwing up the Yankees.

What all these family-owned media empire billionaires could do is what Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have done—give their money to charities that help make the world better and stop trying to boost their egos and manage the empires they are no longer capable of understanding. Fat chance.

Posted by Charles Warner at 04:27 PM | Comments (2) | Print |

Paul Talbot at August 4, 2007 09:03 AM writes:

---

Media Curmudgeon at August 3, 2007 09:57 PM writes:

---